Editing Mass (section)

=== Inertial mass ===
Mass was traditionally believed to be a measure of the quantity of matter in a physical body, equal to the "amount of matter" in an object. For example, [[Adhémar Jean Claude Barré de Saint-Venant|Barre´ de Saint-Venant]] argued in 1851 that every object contains a number of "points" (basically, interchangeable elementary particles), and that mass is proportional to the number of points the object contains.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Coelho |first1=Ricardo Lopes |title=On the Concept of Force: How Understanding its History can Improve Physics Teaching |journal=Science & Education |date=January 2010 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=91–113 |doi=10.1007/s11191-008-9183-1|bibcode=2010Sc&Ed..19...91C |s2cid=195229870 }}</ref> (In practice, this "amount of matter" definition is adequate for most of classical mechanics, and sometimes remains in use in basic education, if the priority is to teach the difference between mass from weight.)<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gibbs |first1=Yvonne |title=Teachers Learn the Difference Between Mass and Weight Even in Space |url=https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/teachers-learn-the-difference-between-mass-and-weight-even-in-space |website=NASA |access-date=20 March 2023 |date=31 March 2017 |archive-date=20 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320070434/https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/teachers-learn-the-difference-between-mass-and-weight-even-in-space/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> This traditional "amount of matter" belief was contradicted by the fact that different atoms (and, later, different elementary particles) can have different masses, and was further contradicted by Einstein's theory of relativity (1905), which showed that the measurable mass of an object increases when energy is added to it (for example, by increasing its temperature or forcing it near an object that electrically repels it.) This motivates a search for a different definition of mass that is more accurate than the traditional definition of "the amount of matter in an object".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hecht |first1=Eugene |title=There Is No Really Good Definition of Mass |journal=The Physics Teacher |date=January 2006 |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=40–45 |doi=10.1119/1.2150758|bibcode=2006PhTea..44...40H }}</ref>

[[File:Massmeter.jpg|thumb|Massmeter, a device for measuring the inertial mass of an astronaut in weightlessness. The mass is calculated via the oscillation period for a spring with the astronaut attached ([[Tsiolkovsky State Museum of the History of Cosmonautics]]).]]
''Inertial mass'' is the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration. This definition has been championed by [[Ernst Mach]]<ref>Ernst Mach, "Science of Mechanics" (1919)</ref><ref name=belkind>Ori Belkind, "Physical Systems: Conceptual Pathways between Flat Space-time and Matter" (2012) Springer (''Chapter 5.3'')</ref> and has since been developed into the notion of [[Operationalization|operationalism]] by [[Percy W. Bridgman]].<ref>P.W. Bridgman, ''Einstein's Theories and the Operational Point of View'', in: P.A. Schilpp, ed., ''Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist'', Open Court, La Salle, Ill., Cambridge University Press, 1982, Vol. 2, pp. 335–354.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gillies | first1 = D.A. | year = 1972 | title = PDF | url = https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/gillies/documents/1972a_Operationalism.pdf | journal = Synthese | volume = 25 | pages = 1–24 | doi = 10.1007/BF00484997 | s2cid = 239369276 | access-date = 10 April 2016 | archive-date = 26 April 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160426201827/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/gillies/documents/1972a_Operationalism.pdf | url-status = dead }}</ref> The simple [[classical mechanics]] definition of mass differs slightly from the definition in the theory of [[special relativity]], but the essential meaning is the same.

In classical mechanics, according to [[Newton's second law]], we say that a body has a mass ''m'' if, at any instant of time, it obeys the equation of motion
: <math>\mathbf{F}=m \mathbf{a},</math>
where '''F''' is the resultant [[force]] acting on the body and '''a''' is the [[acceleration]] of the body's centre of mass.<ref group="note">In its original form, Newton's second law is valid only for bodies of constant mass.</ref> For the moment, we will put aside the question of what "force acting on the body" actually means.

This equation illustrates how mass relates to the [[inertia]] of a body. Consider two objects with different masses. If we apply an identical force to each, the object with a bigger mass will experience a smaller acceleration, and the object with a smaller mass will experience a bigger acceleration. We might say that the larger mass exerts a greater "resistance" to changing its state of motion in response to the force.

However, this notion of applying "identical" forces to different objects brings us back to the fact that we have not really defined what a force is. We can sidestep this difficulty with the help of [[Newton's third law]], which states that if one object exerts a force on a second object, it will experience an equal and opposite force. To be precise, suppose we have two objects of constant inertial masses ''m''<sub>1</sub> and ''m''<sub>2</sub>. We isolate the two objects from all other physical influences, so that the only forces present are the force exerted on ''m''<sub>1</sub> by ''m''<sub>2</sub>, which we denote '''F'''<sub>12</sub>, and the force exerted on ''m''<sub>2</sub> by ''m''<sub>1</sub>, which we denote '''F'''<sub>21</sub>. Newton's second law states that
: <math>
\begin{align}
\mathbf{F_{12}} & =m_1\mathbf{a}_1,\\
\mathbf{F_{21}} & =m_2\mathbf{a}_2,
\end{align}</math>
where '''a'''<sub>1</sub> and '''a'''<sub>2</sub> are the accelerations of ''m''<sub>1</sub> and ''m''<sub>2</sub>, respectively. Suppose that these accelerations are non-zero, so that the forces between the two objects are non-zero. This occurs, for example, if the two objects are in the process of colliding with one another. Newton's third law then states that
: <math qid=Q3235565>\mathbf{F}_{12}=-\mathbf{F}_{21};</math>
and thus
: <math>m_1=m_2\frac{|\mathbf{a}_2|}{|\mathbf{a}_1|}\!.</math>

If {{abs|'''a'''<sub>1</sub>}} is non-zero, the fraction is well-defined, which allows us to measure the inertial mass of ''m''<sub>1</sub>. In this case, ''m''<sub>2</sub> is our "reference" object, and we can define its mass ''m'' as (say) 1&nbsp;kilogram. Then we can measure the mass of any other object in the universe by colliding it with the reference object and measuring the accelerations.

Additionally, mass relates a body's [[momentum]] '''p''' to its linear [[velocity]] '''v''':
: <math qid=Q41273>\mathbf{p}=m\mathbf{v}</math>,
and the body's [[kinetic energy]] ''K'' to its velocity:
: <math qid=Q46276>K=\dfrac{1}{2}m|\mathbf{v}|^2</math>.

The primary difficulty with Mach's definition of mass is that it fails to take into account the [[potential energy]] (or [[binding energy]]) needed to bring two masses sufficiently close to one another to perform the measurement of mass.<ref name=belkind/> This is most vividly demonstrated by comparing the mass of the [[proton]] in the nucleus of [[deuterium]], to the mass of the proton in free space (which is greater by about 0.239%—this is due to the binding energy of deuterium). Thus, for example, if the reference weight ''m''<sub>2</sub> is taken to be the mass of the neutron in free space, and the relative accelerations for the proton and neutron in deuterium are computed, then the above formula over-estimates the mass ''m''<sub>1</sub> (by 0.239%) for the proton in deuterium.  At best, Mach's formula can only be used to obtain ratios of masses, that is, as ''m''<sub>1</sub>&nbsp;/&nbsp;''m''<sub>2</sub> = {{abs|'''a'''<sub>2</sub>}}&nbsp;/&nbsp;{{abs|'''a'''<sub>1</sub>}}.  An additional difficulty was pointed out by [[Henri Poincaré]], which is that the measurement of instantaneous acceleration is impossible: unlike the measurement of time or distance, there is no way to measure acceleration with a single measurement; one must make multiple measurements (of position, time, etc.) and perform a computation to obtain the acceleration.  Poincaré termed this to be an "insurmountable flaw" in the Mach definition of mass.<ref>Henri Poincaré. "[https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Poincare/Poincare_1905_07.html Classical Mechanics]". Chapter 6 in Science and Hypothesis. London: Walter Scott Publishing (1905): 89-110.</ref>